[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-390823-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-390823-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","no-comment-the-mpre-should-not-test-knowledge-of-the-comments-to-the-model-rules-abstract","NO COMMENT: THE MPRE SHOULD NOT TEST KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMENTS TO THE MODEL RULES - ABSTRACT","","This article argues that the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) should not test knowledge of the Comments to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Textual analysis shows the Comments have grown longer, more complex, and harder to understand, while their language shifts between mandatory and advisory in ways that can obscure their interpretive function. The piece concludes that requiring memorization of this extensive advisory material risks reinforcing misunderstanding, even though it recognizes the Comments as valuable for research and practice.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/no-comment-the-mpre-should-not-test-knowledge-of-the-comments-to-the-model-rules-abstract/390823/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/no-comment-the-mpre-should-not-test-knowledge-of-the-comments-to-the-model-rules-abstract/390823.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Mabel","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-25",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What central claim does the article make about the MPRE?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The article argues that the MPRE should not test knowledge of the Comments to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What does the author say about how the Comments have changed over time?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The author demonstrates that the Comments have become increasingly long, complex, and difficult to understand.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why does the author argue the Comments’ role is misunderstood?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The analysis finds inconsistent use of mandatory versus advisory language, which can create confusion about whether the Comments are interpretive guidance rather than binding rules.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},390823,1790452487,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,100,105,110,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},7971474920318,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/74000ee537e6b0ca360?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1788430171632181674","NO COMMENT: THE MPRE SHOULD NOT TEST KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMENTS TO THE MODEL RULES  \nMargaret Raymond*  \nABSTRACT  \nThis article argues that the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) should not test knowledge of the Comments to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Through textual analysis, the author demonstrates that the Comments have become increasingly long, complex, and difficult to understand over time. The analysis also reveals an inconsistent use of mandatory versus advisory language, creating confusion about the Comments’ intended role as interpretive guidance rather than binding rules. The author argues that the role of the Comments is broadly misunderstood, and that requiring MPRE test-takers to master this extensive body of complex advisory material has the potential to compound that misunderstanding. While the article views the Comments as profoundly valuable resources for research and practice, it concludes that new lawyers should not be required to commit them to memory.  \nINTRODUCTION  \nMy students hate the Comments to the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules (the Comments and the Rules respectively) .1 When I  \n* Professor and Warren P. Knowles Chair and Dean Emeritus, University of Wisconsin Law School; Subject Matter Expert for the MPRE since 2021 . The author sincerely thanks the participants in this Symposium for thought-provoking and helpful comments, including Peter Joy, Bruce Green, Ben Barton, Barbara Glesner-Fines, Susan Fortney, Carol Needham, Tigran Eldred, Leslie Levin, and Marsha Griggs. And many thanks to Kris Turner and the incomparable staff at the University of Wisconsin Law Library for help in accessing important sources, configuring versions of the Comments that could be subjected to textual analysis, and learning to use this new and very interesting technology.  \n1. See MODEL RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT (AM. BAR ASS’N 2024) . Actually, I typically do not assign the Comments to the Model Rules, but rather the comments to the rules of professional conduct in the state where my students are attending law school. In recent years, this has been Wisconsin. Wisconsin adopted most of the Model Rules’Comments, writing its own Comments to indicate where the state’s Rules deviate materially from the model, so those are the ones I assign. I occasionally point  \nassign a Rule to them, I typically assign them to read all the Comments to the Rule as well. I’m pretty sure they don’t do it. Some occasionally ask me to point out the Comments that are relevant, so they do not have to read them all, because it feels like a waste of time. The Comments are complex, intricate, and wordy; students are not sure which ones are important and which ones are not. They do not want to spend their time wading through a substantial volume of long, complex verbiage, trying to figure out which of the Comments are essential to their mastery of the basic concepts of their professional responsibility course.  \nI find myself of two minds about this request. On the one hand, taken as a whole, the Comments are essential scaffolding for lawyers who want tobe deeply knowledgeable about professional responsibility. They can be useful guides to a particular problem or issue. And there are a lot of great resources in them: examples, exceptions, and general wisdom. They are generated by processes that involve knowledgeable experts in the field,2 and are worthy of respect, if not universal approval.  \nstudents specifically to Comments to the Model Rules that are pertinent and have not yet been adopted by Wisconsin. For example, in discussing prohibitions on solicitation, Comment [2] to Model Rule 7.3 clarifies the term “live person-to-person contact.” MODEL RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT r. 7.3 cmt. 2 (AM. BAR ASS’N 2024) . Wisconsin’s Rule uses a slightly different term, “live telephone or real-time electronic contact.” WIS. SUP. CT. R. § 20:7 .3. But neither the Wisconsin Rule nor its Comments define the term “real-tim","cbCaiiU9o1AvHygA","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiiU9o1AvHygA","pdf",330430,22,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n## Student reactions to the Comments\n## Role and value of the Comments\n## Textual analysis themes (length, complexity, language)\n## Implications for MPRE testing","[{\"question\":\"What central claim does the article make about the MPRE?\",\"answer\":\"The article argues that the MPRE should not test knowledge of the Comments to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the author say about how the Comments have changed over time?\",\"answer\":\"The author demonstrates that the Comments have become increasingly long, complex, and difficult to understand.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the author argue the Comments’ role is misunderstood?\",\"answer\":\"The analysis finds inconsistent use of mandatory versus advisory language, which can create confusion about whether the Comments are interpretive guidance rather than binding rules.\"}]","NO COMMENT: THE MPRE SHOULD NOT TEST KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMENTS TO THE MODEL RULES - ABSTRACT | PDF",1790341081,55]